slides: 
osf.io/64mbt
20 Oct 2019
A (typical?) story
of a young researcher
Incentive structures
in scholarly communication
novelty
positive results
(Nosek, Spies, and Motyl 2012)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Degrees of freedom
in the research process
- multitude of decisions to be made
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Degrees of freedom
in the research process
- multitude of decisions to be made
Are football (soccer) referees more likely to give red cards to players with dark skin than to players with light skin?
- 29 research teams
- same data set
- same results?
(Silberzahn and Uhlmann 2015)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Degrees of freedom
in the research process
- multitude of decisions to be made
Are football (soccer) referees more likely to give red cards to players with dark skin than to players with light skin?
- 29 research teams
- same data set
- same results?
(Silberzahn and Uhlmann 2015)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Nobody’s perfect - cognitive biases
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Nobody’s perfect - cognitive biases
Nobody’s perfect - cognitive biases
confirmation bias
hindsight bias
(Munafò et al. 2017)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
QRP
Questionable Research Practices
outcome switching/ failing to report all DV
failing to report all conditions
selectively reporting studies that “worked”
(John, Loewenstein, and Prelec 2012)
selective
reporting
slides: osf.io/64mbt
QRP
Questionable Research Practices
peeking & optional stopping
excluding data (after looking at the impact)
HARKing
(John, Loewenstein, and Prelec 2012)
flexibility
in methods
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Open Science (Practices)
What is Open Knowledge?
Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it - subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness.
slides: osf.io/64mbt
What is Open Science?
Open science is the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society.
FOSTER Open Science
(Woelfle, Olliaro, and Todd 2011)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Open Science Principles
- open access
- open data
- open source & materials
- open methodology
- open peer review
- open educational resoures (Piwowar and Vision 2013)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
(Fecher and Friesike 2014)
What’s in it for me?
slides: osf.io/64mbt
What’s in it for me?
- OA articles higher citation rate
(Lewis 2018) - Preprint + Publication higher citation rate
(Fraser et al. 2019)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
What’s in it for me?
- OA articles higher citation rate
(Lewis 2018) - Preprint + Publication higher citation rate
(Fraser et al. 2019) - Open data higher citation rate
(Piwowar and Vision 2013) - Data papers in Open Data Journals
(incomplete list of journals)
slides: osf.io/64mbt
What’s in it for me?
- OA articles higher citation rate
(Lewis 2018) - Preprint + Publication higher citation rate
(Fraser et al. 2019) - Open data higher citation rate
(Piwowar and Vision 2013) - Data papers in Open Data Journals
(incomplete list of journals) - Facilitate collaboration
- Feedback improvement
- …
slides: osf.io/64mbt
Thank you
Jürgen Schneider
juergen.schneider@uni-tuebingen.de
07071-29 76088
ORCID: 0000-0002-3772-4198
Pictures
title page | Finn Hackshaw on Unsplash
light bulbs | Dragos Gontariu on Unsplash
six | Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash
biases | John Manoogian III, categories & descriptions: Buster Benson, implementation: TilmannR, CC BY-SA 4.0
Fecher, Benedikt, and Sascha Friesike. 2014. “Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought.” In Opening Science, edited by Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike, 17–47. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2.
Fraser, Nicholas, Fakhri Momeni, Philipp Mayr, and Isabella Peters. 2019. “The Effect of bioRxiv Preprints on Citations and Altmetrics.” Preprint. Scientific Communication; Education. https://doi.org/10.1101/673665.
John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. 2012. “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling.” Psychological Science 23 (5): 524–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.
Lewis, Colby Lil. 2018. “The Open Access Citation Advantage: Does It Exist and What Does It Mean for Libraries?” Information Technology and Libraries 37 (3): 50–65. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v37i3.10604.
Munafò, Marcus R., Brian A. Nosek, Dorothy V. M. Bishop, Katherine S. Button, Christopher D. Chambers, Nathalie Du Percie Sert, Uri Simonsohn, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Jennifer J. Ware, and John P. A. Ioannidis. 2017. “A Manifesto for Reproducible Science.” Nature Human Behaviour 1 (January): 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
Nosek, Brian A., Jeffrey R. Spies, and Matt Motyl. 2012. “Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth over Publishability.” Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 7 (6): 615–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058.
Piwowar, Heather A., and Todd J. Vision. 2013. “Data Reuse and the Open Data Citation Advantage.” PeerJ 1 (October): e175. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175.
Silberzahn, Raphael, and Eric L. Uhlmann. 2015. “Crowdsourced Research: Many Hands Make Tight Work.” Nature 526 (7572): 189–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/526189a.
Woelfle, Michael, Piero Olliaro, and Matthew H. Todd. 2011. “Open Science Is a Research Accelerator.” Nature Chemistry 3 (10): 745–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1149.